ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, August 25, 2014

When egos collide

I thought you all might find this Twitter exchange to be as amusing as I did. Surgeons are notorious for their arrogance, while your humble host is not exactly known for being devoid of confidence.
Vox Day ‏@voxday
A published study appears to have detected vaccine fraud in a CDC study of autism and the MMR vaccine.

David Gorski ‏@gorskon
@voxday No, not so much. But your swallowing that codswallop whole shows just how little you know about science.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
@gorskon Amusing. You clearly don't even understand the difference between statistical review and science. You're science-illiterate.

Sebastian Armstrong ‏@spikesandspokes
@voxday @gorskon Hilarious, he is a cancer surgeon who has been part of breast cancer research, and YOU think HE is science-illiterate!

Vox Day ‏@voxday
@spikesandspokes @gorskon He observably is science-illiterate. Statistical analysis is not science. Neither, for that matter, is surgery.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
@spikesandspokes @gorskon We're getting ready for our fantasy football draft. Or, as you science-illiterates would call it, "doing science".

David Gorski ‏@gorskon
@voxday @spikesandspokes Says the guy who has never published in the scientific literature and thinks he knows science.

David Gorski ‏@gorskon
@voxday @spikesandspokes As opposed to someone (me) who has actually published multiple scientific papers, including one coauthor in Nature

Vox Day ‏@voxday
@gorskon @spikesandspokes No, says the guy whose scientific hypotheses have been turned into multiple published papers and cited by Nature.

David Gorski ‏@gorskon
@spikesandspokes Don't worry. @voxday amuses me with his arrogance of ignorance with respect to science, particularly vaccine science.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
@gorskon @spikesandspokes You're the one dumb enough to claim statistical review is science, not me.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
@gorskon @spikesandspokes BFD. Nature has also cited one of my original hypotheses. And it doesn't erase your basic blunder re statistics.

Vox Day ‏@voxday 2h
@gorskon @spikesandspokes But your logically fallacious appeal to credentials does amuse me. Now, I've got to get back to my draft science.

 David Gorski ‏@gorskon
@voxday @spikesandspokes Also, hypotheses are a dime a dozen. Hypotheses that stand up to scientific scrutiny are what matter, silly boy.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
 @gorskon @spikesandspokes They did, Mr. Doctor Scientist. That's kind of the point.

Vox Day ‏@voxday @gorskon @spikesandspokes I'm not worried. Your insecurity is hilarious. Nobody gives a damn about your credentials, Mr. Doctor Scientist.

David Gorski ‏@gorskon
@voxday @spikesandspokes Who’s more insecure, the guy w/ actual scientific accomplishments (me) or the guy who brags about hypothese (you)?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
@gorskon @spikesandspokes I don't brag about it. You're the one who rushed to cite Nature, not me. I simply pointed out: BFD. So, you.

David Gorski ‏@gorskon
@voxday @spikesandspokes And you’re the one who bragged first about a hypothesis cited in Nature.

Vox Day ‏@voxday now
@gorskon @spikesandspokes Wrong again. I responded at 2:59 to your mention of Nature at 2:57. Science illiterate and can't tell time either?
One thing I've noticed about scientists is that they never seem to understand that their expertise in one particular area doesn't translate very well, if at all, into unrelated areas. That's why it is so easy to trip them up; their rush to defend their wounded intellectual vanity leads them from one error into another.

And, of course, they always retreat to their credentials and citations in lieu of being able to actually argue their way out of a paper bag. It's probably a character flaw, but I do love it when this sort of situational moron decides to take a crack at me.

UPDATE: To be fair to the guy, I was the first one to mention Nature. And, since apparently none of my would-be critics are smart enough to search the blog, the hypothesis referenced is obviously my argument demonstrating that religion does not cause war, which has been cited everywhere from Foreign Policy to Wikipedia to Nature to The New York Times. And as for anyone who wants to resort to the obvious dodge of crediting The Encyclopedia of Wars, well, I will simply laugh at you and observe that while I have it, and have read it, you obviously haven't ever even laid eyes upon it.

Labels:

168 Comments:

Anonymous Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 25, 2014 4:04 PM  

Guess they don't teach logic in med school.

Anonymous Josh August 25, 2014 4:05 PM  

Who's your top 5 in ff this year?

Anonymous Fnord P August 25, 2014 4:09 PM  

As a PhD with several published papers (none in Nature to my shame) I can say scientifically and statistically that I never met more stupid people then when I was in academia. Basically an industry stuffed with children who were good schoolwork and nothing else elevated to some special status because governments and charities don't expect results for their investment (how's that cure for cancer coming along researchers around the world?).

Anonymous Jason C. August 25, 2014 4:09 PM  

My multiple degrees in completely unrelated fields of study tell me that you are wrong, Vox. You should be ashamed... or something.

Blogger RobertT August 25, 2014 4:12 PM  

" they never seem to understand that their expertise in one particular area doesn't translate very well, if at all, into unrelated areas

I have noticed that as well, especially with physicians. If they don't understand this, how smart can they be? I have read the average physician IQ is 125, which isn't chopped liver, but it's not as smart as they think they are.

Anonymous DavidK August 25, 2014 4:14 PM  

We have a CDC researcher admitting to fraud and a coverup, and Gorski insists it must all be nonsense.

Well, it isn't as if cancer research isn't heavily corrupted also. Vitamin D might put Gorski out of a job.

Anonymous FaustsBargainSale August 25, 2014 4:15 PM  

My immediate suspicion was that the study doesn't quite say what you think it does, but I lacked the time and technical training to really say why.

What's disturbing is that having skimmed the other thread, people who do have the necessary training and who do want to refute you are, instead of pointing out what you misread or why the study doesn't say what you think it does, are instead pointing their finger at you and screaming, "You're a stupid poopy-head!" If you're that dumb, clearly somebody can point out why, right? Instead of just saying that you agree with Jenny McCarthy, and she's kind of dim, so you must therefore be an idiot? Or that a guy published an article in nature, and therefore you're an idiot? Or that the polio vaccine worked great, and therefore another vaccine can't be linked to a rise in autism?

Someone has to recognize that none of that is persuasive in the slightest, right?

Anonymous Noah B. August 25, 2014 4:17 PM  

I guess one hidden benefit of surgical masks is that it keeps them from drooling into their patients.

Anonymous Alexander August 25, 2014 4:18 PM  

This is pretty cool. So what he's saying is that this post, this post I'm typing out *right now*.

Is me practicing rhetorical keyboard science.

Blogger GF Dad August 25, 2014 4:21 PM  

Having spent over a month in the hospital back in 13, I will go along with the physicians having an average IQ of 125. My personal experience was that many of the nurses were sharper than some of the doctors. I had to work with the nurses to come up with my own treatment plans and then sell it to the doctor.

The sad thing about the appeal to credentials is that it works on many midwits.

Anonymous Porky August 25, 2014 4:22 PM  

Invariably, the word "codswallop" signals that rhetorical failure is imminent.

Anonymous Fnord P August 25, 2014 4:24 PM  

I remember a seminar by someone who discovered a link between a certain gene and a familial form of a serious disease. He was published in Nature, headhunted by the biggest labs on both sides of the Atlantic and had all kinds of grant money thrown at him as a reward for his scientific brilliance.

During the talk he explained that he was part of an international collaboration, that he had had a certain part of a certain chromosome assigned to him and he carried out the proscribed experiments and that the gene just happened to be there. He was very open and honest about the fact that he'd done nothing special and he really couldn't understand what all the fuss was about.

Anonymous dickson August 25, 2014 4:24 PM  

Twitter may sort differently, but I have you mentioning Nature first.

David Groski @groskon
.@voxday @spikesandspokes Then why won't you provide me with the relevant citation in Nature? Until you do, I call BS


He makes a good point. I recall that you were never actually cited, but you just inferred that someone picked up your idea from reading the blog. I could be wrong though.

Blogger rumpole5 August 25, 2014 4:30 PM  

The AVERAGE is 125! Damn! And I settled for law! Being ethically challenged, I had to settle for prosecution, but physicians can make $ even if they do have transcendent values.

Anonymous Noah B. August 25, 2014 4:31 PM  

Apparently, reading comprehension is a dying art.

Anonymous Fnord P August 25, 2014 4:31 PM  

proscribed = prescribed

Anonymous ck August 25, 2014 4:31 PM  

In the good old days, surgeons knew quite well that although they used certain scientific concepts, their practice was not science per se. They knew that they were professionals engaged in the ART of medicine. But that was at a time when surgeons - and others with colleged degrees - were more educated in the classical sense.

Anonymous GreyS August 25, 2014 4:33 PM  

The big mistake they always make is letting their emotion run before their mouths/typing.

Interesting fellow. Spends most of his free time disputing vaccine opponents, while just happening to be on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies, and is a twitter follower of PZ Meyers, the Judge Dredd comic, and Emily Ratajkowski ( ! )

Anonymous Sigyn August 25, 2014 4:34 PM  

9 out of 10 doctors agree that statistical analysis is not rocket surgery.

Anonymous patrick kelly August 25, 2014 4:34 PM  

When egos collide....

...hilarity ensues...
... I am amused
....and greatly entertained..

Anonymous Fnord P August 25, 2014 4:41 PM  

Interesting fellow. Spends most of his free time disputing vaccine opponents, while just happening to be on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies...

Par for the course, I'm afraid. The paid speaking engagements at all-expenses paid conferences and the paid for advisory board meetings in exotic places (Phuket anyone?) and the paid for clinical trials are hard to resist for even the most ethical of physicians - after all they are true believers.

Anonymous indpndnt August 25, 2014 4:43 PM  

As someone with higher degrees I can also verify that many people don't realize just how simple basic scientific philosophy is. Part of that includes the difference between statistics and science. Statistics may be used to help discover potential relationships, but that must always be followed up with experiment. One doesn't need Kuhn (although it was a good read) to know or debate the essentials of science. There is also something to be said for someone outside the field looking in an criticizing.

Doctors and the like are just practitioners and meat-based table lookup routines (many fields of work fall under that category). As much as they want to join the priesthood of the "brights", they are not scientists. They may certainly know how to read a journal paper, but that's something so incredibly easy that it could be taught in high school. The only thing keeping people from doing it is generally statistical illiteracy, along with the "scientistry is the priesthood" mentality.

Anonymous Porky August 25, 2014 4:43 PM  

and is a twitter follower of PZ Meyers

So that's where he learned it from - Mr. "I teach biology at a community college so don't tell me about science".

Anonymous damntull August 25, 2014 4:43 PM  

When I read these kind of threads I experience a visceral response that irritates me to my core. Gorski's second tweet should have been an apology, but unfortunately, he's apparently an asshole.

Anonymous GreyS August 25, 2014 4:44 PM  

And a SF fan and follower of @wilw Will Wheaton

So the emotional reaction is making more sense. VD may have found a replacement for Damien. Surely more to come with THAT ego.

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 4:47 PM  

Someone has to recognize that none of that is persuasive in the slightest, right?

They don't, because intimidation has always worked for them in the past. And they can't grasp that it won't work on me, because I am smarter than most of them.

He makes a good point. I recall that you were never actually cited, but you just inferred that someone picked up your idea from reading the blog.

It's not a good point. It's a terrible, logically fallacious point. Reality is what it is regardless of whether someone else proves it to your satisfaction or not. My hypotheses was most certainly cited, as it happens, cited as fact, and I did not infer it. I have absolute proof of it.

Also, it wasn't taken from the blog, it was taken from TIA. The other two studies were related to each other, one was by some folks at Boston University who asked me if I wanted credit on the paper or not. I declined.

Because, as I apparently have to keep pointing out, I don't care about the academic world and all it's little merit badges. If I wanted to go into academia, I would have. As it is, one of my great regrets is wasting the two years just to collect my Bachelor of Science degree. I should have dropped out and sold my sound board.

Anonymous Sensei August 25, 2014 4:48 PM  

My immediate suspicion was that the study doesn't quite say what you think it does... What's disturbing is that having skimmed the other thread, people who do have the necessary training... are instead pointing their finger at you and screaming, "You're a stupid poopy-head!" If you're that dumb, clearly somebody can point out why, right? - FaustsBargainSale

That is an interesting thing I've discovered on this blog. I often think Vox is wrong or taking the wrong approach on a particular issue, but quite often it is not Vox but his opponents who convince me that he is at least partially correct by their own reactions. If something is so manifestly wrong, why not swiftly demonstrate how, instead of either a) shrieking "badthink badfeel" over and over, or b) clumsy appeals to credentials, and usually in both cases refusing to actually discuss the topic at hand in a competent manner.

Incompetent opponents don't prove one is correct, of course, but they certainly don't hurt in making it seem that you may in fact be.

Blogger Nate August 25, 2014 4:48 PM  

My favorite tactic with surgeons is to remind them that for all their bluster they could be replaced with chinese slave labor textile worker.

Anonymous Dumb founded August 25, 2014 4:49 PM  

My immediate suspicion was that the study doesn't quite say what you think it does, but I lacked the time and technical training to really say why.

Shutup, because peer review!

Translational Neurodegeneration is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that covers research, therapeutics and education for all aspects of neurodegenerative diseases.

Anonymous Fnord P August 25, 2014 4:53 PM  

As it is, one of my great regrets is wasting the two years just to collect my Bachelor of Science degree.

As someone who went to the end of that particular rainbow, tell your kids not to enter academia unless they really want to spend the rest of their life studying something so small and insignificant that only five other people in the world know what you are talking about - and they're all juvenile sociopaths who hate you because your point of view about the small, insignificant thing is *slightly different* to theirs.

Blogger FALPhil August 25, 2014 5:02 PM  

damntull wrote:
When I read these kind of threads I experience a visceral response that irritates me to my core. Gorski's second tweet should have been an apology, but unfortunately, he's apparently an asshole.


Do you think McRapey will hate him since he is an apparent asshole?

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus August 25, 2014 5:03 PM  

Have you ever really looked at what the curriculum for 3 years in a typical med school looks like? Mostly anatomy, memorization, and a bunch of bullshit.

And after that, 5 to 8 years of Apprenticeship / OJT.


There's no real reason Physician could't be a BS degree instead of an MD. I'd submit that it is one of the easier professional Doctorate degrees (Juris Doctor excluded)

Anonymous rho August 25, 2014 5:17 PM  

My favorite tactic with surgeons is to remind them that for all their bluster they could be replaced with chinese slave labor textile worker.

You should try telling programmers that they can be replaced with a million dippy birds in front of a million Dvorak keyboards.

I expect you'd get a similar reaction.

Anonymous SkinDeep August 25, 2014 5:21 PM  

It's nice how you avoid the issue of the 'statistical analysis' being misleading. There is no relationship between autism and vaccines.

Anonymous dickson August 25, 2014 5:27 PM  

How is asking for evidence of an assertion (your citation) logically fallacious?

Your statement may be true, but without the actual citation, no one has any reason to believe you. And for those familiar with your online persona, I would argue there is reason to not believe you without direct evidence.

Anonymous DavidK August 25, 2014 5:29 PM  

There is no relationship between autism and vaccines.

Unless the CDC adds back in all the children who were fraudulently removed from the study in Atlanta. Once that is done, the data shows vaccination causes an increased risk in black children if given the MMR vaccine before 36 months.

Anonymous fish August 25, 2014 5:30 PM  



I don't know Porky….given the relatively obscure nature of the term I was going to award him the win based on this alone!

"Codswallop"…..brilliant!

Anonymous JI August 25, 2014 5:37 PM  

I sure hope Vox never ends up needing emergency surgery only to find out as he's going under that his surgeon is Mister Doctor Gorski. :-)

Blogger Outlaw X August 25, 2014 5:42 PM  

And coming in in 5th place... ...And I'll vouch for it after what I have seen.

Top ten jobs most likely to attract psychopaths.
1. Chief executive officer
2. Lawyer
3. Media (Television/Radio)
4. Salesperson
5. Surgeon
6. Journalist
7. Police officer
8. Clergy person
9. Chef
10. Civil servant

Just google it if you don't believe me.

Anonymous dh August 25, 2014 5:46 PM  

Nate--

The surgeon's of the world are well and prepared to use whatever means they can to sabotage the innovation of medical robotics, to protect their monopoly on cutting flesh and surgery. They have lots of money and lots of power, so it will probably work for a while.

Some medical activities are more art than science, but surgery tends not to be one. Surgery is more than many other disciplines a precision activity. Which makes it very suitable for robotics.

Anonymous Dumb founded August 25, 2014 5:49 PM  

It's nice how you avoid the issue of the 'statistical analysis' being misleading. There is no relationship between autism and vaccines.

You forgot to provide any statistics to back up your claims.

Anonymous Noah B. August 25, 2014 5:49 PM  

"...the data shows vaccination causes an increased risk in black children if given the MMR vaccine before 36 months."

It's still a bit premature to say there is a direct causal link -- we would need a reproducible neurodegenerative mechanism for that to be the case -- but there is a correlation. If scientists were interested in discovering truth instead of doing the bidding of big pharma, they would be scrambling to investigate this further.

Anonymous Krul August 25, 2014 5:59 PM  

One thing I've noticed about scientists is that they never seem to understand that their expertise in one particular area doesn't translate very well, if at all, into unrelated areas.

Socrates noticed much the same thing of those with technical expertise:

Last of all I turned to the skilled craftsmen. I knew quite well that I had practically no technical qualifications myself, and I was sure that I should find them full of impressive knowledge. In this I was not disappointed. They understood things which I did not, and to that extent they were wiser than I was. But, gentlemen, these professional experts seemed to share the same failing which I had noticed in the poets. I mean that on the strength of their technical proficiency they claimed a perfect understanding of every other subject, however important, and I felt that this error more than outweighed their positive wisdom. So I made myself spokesman for the oracle, and asked myself whether I would rather be as I was - neither wise with their wisdom nor stupid with their stupidity - or possess both qualities as they did. I replied through myself to the oracle that it was best for me to be as I was.

This is the best description of doctors, scientists, and other experts that I know - that they are "wise with their wisdom, and stupid with their stupidity."

Anonymous AdamG August 25, 2014 6:06 PM  

I'm a geneticist with extensive training in statistics. The Hooker study is the worst I've ever come across, and here's a thorough explanation of why his methodology is the opposite of appropriate:
http://www.epidemiological.net/directed-acyclic-graphs-and-the-mmr-vaccine-doesnt-cause-autism/

Anonymous laughing August 25, 2014 6:15 PM  

Two grown men bitch slapping each other on Twitter like a couple of faggots in drag.

Anonymous Huckleberry -- est. 1977 August 25, 2014 6:15 PM  

In case you were wondering that is known as irony

No, that is in fact not irony.
And please, people, the HTML necessary for links is frighteningly simple.

Please see here.

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 6:16 PM  

How is asking for evidence of an assertion (your citation) logically fallacious?

There is nothing wrong with asking for evidence. But assuming that it is false on the basis that the evidence is not provided is logically fallacious.

Your statement may be true, but without the actual citation, no one has any reason to believe you. And for those familiar with your online persona, I would argue there is reason to not believe you without direct evidence.

You have it precisely backwards. People have a very good reason to believe me because I don't make statements like this without being fully able to back it up. And, in fact, those sufficiently familiar with me online already know exactly what I am referring to.

This is hardly the first time I've watched people make jackasses of themselves by claiming the truth to be a lie. Unlike most people, I'm content with knowing the truth. I don't care what everyone else thinks... because MPAI.

Anonymous Authority Person Type August 25, 2014 6:20 PM  

Science DERP logical fail DERP DERP published in DERPA magazine *SCIENCE* (twitching neck muscles) you little cretin don't understand REEEEZON and RATIONAL RESOPINSE *poops scientifically in toilet analysis*

Blogger Nate August 25, 2014 6:28 PM  

"Some medical activities are more art than science, but surgery tends not to be one. Surgery is more than many other disciplines a precision activity. Which makes it very suitable for robotics."

I don't think that's the case. Human anatomy varies far more than most folks realize.

Anonymous Stickwick August 25, 2014 6:33 PM  

Well said, indpndnt.

As much as they want to join the priesthood of the "brights", they are not scientists.

Most of the general public seems unaware of this, too.

Personally, I have never met a more unjustifiably arrogant group of people than physicians. As Vox points out, there is an unfortunate tendency with actual scientists to believe their authority in one subject extends to any subject in which they're interested, but physicians are worse. I've gotten into debates with these guys, and they go exactly the way Vox's Twitter argument went.

Anonymous Feminism for Dollars August 25, 2014 6:33 PM  

breast cancer research

Ha! AKA $$$$$$ !
Hey Doctor: why is "breast cancer" up multi-hundreds of percent in the last decade alone??
Are you a Scientist? Don't you Know?? And why is "breast cancer" funding 3x's that of "Prostate Cancer" funding?? Roughly the same number of human beings die from each.
Burn in Hell, bitch.

Anonymous Daniel August 25, 2014 6:35 PM  

I sure hope Vox never ends up needing emergency surgery only to find out as he's going under that his surgeon is Mister Doctor Gorski.

I hope no one is in that position. I mean, you don't have to be a great scientist to be a good doctor, but I question the basic skills of anyone who made it through med school without learning the scientific method...

Anonymous Follw the Money August 25, 2014 6:37 PM  

I have never met a more unjustifiably arrogant group of people than physicians

Why do they Kill Themselves more often at a younger age than your average suicides? An estimated 300-400 doctors kill themselves every year

Care to join the consciousness, David Gorski?
That's what we thought.

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 6:39 PM  

I sure hope Vox never ends up needing emergency surgery only to find out as he's going under that his surgeon is Mister Doctor Gorski.

That's considerably more insulting to Mister Doctor Gorski than anything I have said. I mean, just because I think the guy doesn't know where his limits of expertise are doesn't mean that he has no professional integrity.

Anonymous Shands August 25, 2014 6:40 PM  

I sure hope Vox never ends up needing emergency surgery

The Vast Majority of surgeries are unnecessary and completely for Profit.
The Medical Establishment is about little more than Money. Period.
Tell your "Doctor" to go fuck themselves.
Follow the Money in Medical Colleges. Yeah.
Fuck you Gorski.

Anonymous Mr Brown August 25, 2014 6:46 PM  

Allopathic Medicine replaced for profit.
5 Minutes and a Prescription.
Rockefeller, Medicine Men by E Richard Brown.
These Arrogant Assholes need some Education.

Blogger Nate August 25, 2014 6:49 PM  

and out trot hippies... OCCUPY MAYO CLINIC!

Anonymous Cancer is Big Business August 25, 2014 6:50 PM  

coauthor in Nature

Translation: A Religious Fundie for Gaia and Maurice Strong's Environmentalism and Agenda 21.
AKA "Ignorant Bitch" profiteering off a dishonest System. Fascist.

Anonymous bob k. mando August 25, 2014 6:53 PM  

Noah B. August 25, 2014 4:17 PM
I guess one hidden benefit of surgical masks is that it keeps them from drooling into their patients.



see this? this here?

this is a winner.

then you can explain Fallacies 101 to Doctor Surgeon after he gets done shitting the bed.

Appeal to Authority is bad enough. appealing to your OWN authority ...



Nate August 25, 2014 6:28 PM
I don't think that's the case. Human anatomy varies far more than most folks realize.


yeah, simply the size variations between a 50lb child and a 400lb morbidly obese cause issues. then you get into sports like organs not presenting in the proper 'official' location or being malformed.

i don't foresee surgery being amenable to robotization until you've about got a Turing level AI running.

Anonymous Medicine for Profit August 25, 2014 6:53 PM  

Hypotheses that stand up to scientific scrutiny are what matter, silly boy.

Also known as Peer Reviewed Profitable "Science"
This clown sold his soul and thinks others are unable to follow the Money.
Must have gone to Hopkins or UF.

Anonymous Denninger's Ghost August 25, 2014 6:58 PM  

Who’s more insecure, the guy w/ actual scientific accomplishments (me)

The one who buys Politicians to coercively earn as much money and ego support as possible via the AMA and JAMA. Also known as a "Monopoly Capitalism". This involves Economics Doc, you may want to run for cover.
You lose.

Anonymous They're Lying re Cancer August 25, 2014 7:02 PM  

and can't tell time either?

The Root of Fascism and Bolshevism is The Lie.
Lie upon Lie.
Why is "Prostate Cancer" and "Breast Cancer" up as it is, "Doctor"??
Where's the Science explaining such?
I know where the money is. Easy to see that...
Appeal to this, Bitch...

Anonymous dickson August 25, 2014 7:04 PM  

What I mean Vox is you have a tendancy of advertising the notches in your stock, but you phrase them in a completely truthful, but over sold sort of way, i.e. "billboard charted", I originally took these at attempts at humor, but recently I'm no longer certain that's the case.

So I read the "cited by nature" as another one of these. Hard to be certain of the truth.

However, I saw the update, and am confused. In the comments, I believe you said the nature article used your aspbergers/atheist hypothesis, but the update indicates you are talking about the Religious Wars argument from TIA (which I agree based on the mistake that's been transmitted, is correct). You provided enough evidence to accept that one, the aspbergers one, not really.

Anonymous DanG August 25, 2014 7:07 PM  

In my line of work, I occasionally evaluate affidavits or declarations written by scientific or medical "experts". First, they cite their credentials, which they are legally required to do. Often the credentials are quite impressive. Quite often, though, the declaration amounts to, "I am an expert, and this is my opinion". They fail to even address any of the facts or evidence of record. Legally, I am not required to be persuaded by that. If I have made a determination based on evidence, the declarant has to show that my interpretation was wrong, by showing countervailing evidence. The same is always true. If Dr. Gorski thinks the vaccine study is wrong, then he has to show it with facts. His credentials don't prove anything. Of course, this has been said in this thread, apparently not plainly enough. The priesthood of scientistry does not hold in legal proceedings; it only sways the weak-minded .

I think Vox made a stategic error by countering that his own hypotheses have been mentioned and verified in Nature. This gave Dr. Gorski the excuse to argue about credentials. I could flash my PhD back at the experts but it wouldn't do any good.The question still is "In your considered opinion, Dr. Gorski, what is wrong with this study that the peer reviewers missed?"

Anonymous Luke August 25, 2014 7:18 PM  

RobertT August 25, 2014 4:12 PM

"I have read the average physician IQ is 125, which isn't chopped liver, but it's not as smart as they think they are."

Take out from the statistical calculations the affirmative action slugs and the 3rd-World-origin fake credential/5th-rate professional education* types, and I'd bet a body part that they'd be the other side of 130. My closest friend is a practicing surgeon, who got into med school partly from getting virtually all As in a Chemistry B.S., and partly from spending 6 months spending >40 hours every single week studying scientific materials in preparation for taking the MCAT, on which he got high scores. He got accepted to and graduated from medical school (and residency) despite already-rampant AA at every level, so I'd put his g higher than 125.

Re scientists in general (I'm one), pretty much all of us have extensive experience with nonscientists running out of attention span/vocabulary before we can give even a bare-bones explanation to them, and the NSs thinking that the flaw is in the science, not in their intellectual capabilities. My favorite analogy on this (I'm a geologist) is that young-Earth creationists are akin to proponents of the stork hypothesis wanting mandated equal time and respect at a technical professional conference of obstetricians. That is, sorry, that's not going to happen; go home and let the adults handle this.

*The vast majority of Arab world engineering degrees are not remotely at a level accepted by U.S. accreditation agencies, as one example.

Anonymous Luke August 25, 2014 7:23 PM  

Oh, and for anyone who sincerely believes non-allopathic medical approaches are the way to go, I propose a test. Set up an emergency room trauma center with all the gizmos, but only these people there to staff it: chiropractors, aromatherapists, crystal healing power types, Wiccan priests, Chinese traditional medicine types, and lots and lots of herbalists. After 6 months, compare their statistics to that of any Level I center in a major U.S. city (that has a staff that's at least 80% white). I can already predict the outcome...

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 7:23 PM  

I believe you said the nature article used your aspbergers/atheist hypothesis, but the update indicates you are talking about the Religious Wars argument from TIA (which I agree based on the mistake that's been transmitted, is correct).

You read it incorrectly. I never said nor implied anything about Nature and atheism. Two separate things. Granted, Twitter sucks for precise communication, which is why I prefer blogging.

I think Vox made a stategic error by countering that his own hypotheses have been mentioned and verified in Nature. This gave Dr. Gorski the excuse to argue about credentials

I don't think so. He was already appealing to his credentials. Twitter being a deeply imperfect medium for debate, there was some cross-tweeting taking place. I also didn't say my hypothesis was verified in Nature, it was just a fairly lame article citing the usual bit.

In case it's not clear, I don't give a quantum of a damn about Nature. I don't think I even bothered to link to the article from here and I don't remember who wrote it or what it was called. I certainly didn't bother saving a copy. In my opinion, the whole "who takes credit" game that scientists play is as bullshit as Wikipedia.

All I know is that for decades, idiots who significantly overrated their intelligence have openly asserted that religion caused war. And I came up with more than one easy way to rubbish all of their arguments. Anyone could have done it as it was a ludicrously stupid argument in the first place. But it doesn't change the fact that it still fell to me to do it.

It's hardly indicative of genius or anything, but it felt good at the time. And it felt even better when I was writing TIA and discovered that the Encyclopedia had been published so I didn't have to do all the work of counting up all the wars I could find in my history books. Plus, as I anticipated would turn out to be the case, people took it seriously Because Academics in a way they didn't take it seriously when I reached very similar results by counting up the wars myself.

Anonymous Tom August 25, 2014 7:27 PM  

"I'm a geneticist with extensive training in statistics. The Hooker study is the worst I've ever come across, and here's a thorough explanation of why his methodology is the opposite of appropriate:
http://www.epidemiological.net/directed-acyclic-graphs-and-the-mmr-vaccine-doesnt-cause-autism/"

Is there someone among the ilk with a good enough grasp of scientific methodology to tear this apart?

Anonymous Anonymous August 25, 2014 7:29 PM  

"Re scientists in general (I'm one), pretty much all of us have extensive experience with nonscientists running out of attention span/vocabulary before we can give even a bare-bones explanation to them, and the NSs thinking that the flaw is in the science, not in their intellectual capabilities. My favorite analogy on this (I'm a geologist) is that young-Earth creationists..."

Stop hammer time. You're not a scientist because you're a geologist. Just saying.

Anonymous Anonymous August 25, 2014 7:35 PM  

I sure hope Vox never ends up needing emergency surgery

"The Vast Majority of surgeries are unnecessary and completely for Profit.
The Medical Establishment is about little more than Money. Period.
Tell your "Doctor" to go fuck themselves.
Follow the Money in Medical Colleges. Yeah.
Fuck you Gorski."

This. Gorski is a money grubbing asshole without a coherent thought.

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 7:39 PM  

I originally took these at attempts at humor, but recently I'm no longer certain that's the case.

How to explain it. It's not humor. Look. I don't take these "notches" seriously. At all. Credentials are bullshit; you're only as good as your NEXT thing. As for Billboard, I didn't even know we'd hit the club chart three times, let alone four, until people started questioning whether we'd done it at all and I knew for certain that we had. (I still have no idea what year we won Best Dance Record at the Minnesota Music Awards, but I do know a) it was the night I went to Les Miz, and b) we beat out a Prince song.)

In other words, I'm not one of those people who affects not to care, but very much does. I just don't value the opinion of the award-givers. However, over the years, I've been sufficiently annoyed by people who are attempting to DISQUALIFY me for one reason or another that I've found these notches a very useful way to shut them up. If you look back prior to 2012, you'll see very few references to blog traffic and I would take off weeks at a time. Now, I never, ever, miss a day and I bring it up much more often. Why? Because Shut Up.

If I wasn't busy with Castalia and Book Two and First Sword, I'd probably write something to become a New York Times Bestseller for precisely that reason. I still may at some point for no other reason than to prove I can. But the "Hugo-Nominated" should be enough for now.

Anonymous Luke August 25, 2014 7:46 PM  

Anonymous August 25, 2014 7:29 PM

"Stop hammer time. You're not a scientist because you're a geologist. Just saying."

Interesting. So my two geology degrees (usually considered hard-science degrees) and a decade and a half using them on the job don't qualify me as a scientist? If you're just using the list of what branches of science the Nobel committees use, I think you're going to miss a few.

How about this? I spent about 4 years working (paid FT work) in biotech/industrial microbiology, publishing two papers in very minor journals on yeast fermentation. (Was pre-med for 3 years as an undergraduate, so have more biology and chemistry than most soft-rock geologists.)

Or, is it just an attitude that IYO qualifies one to be a scientist? If so, I would absolutely love to hear what that is.

Anonymous Dumb founded August 25, 2014 7:48 PM  

You're not a scientist because you're a geologist. Just saying.

On what basis do you disqualify geologists?

Do you also disqualify astrophysicists?

Anonymous Dumb founded August 25, 2014 7:49 PM  

Vox, can you allow blockquote tags? Blogspot can handle them.

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 7:50 PM  

On what basis do you disqualify geologists?

He only says that because he has no respect for the field. Bazinga!

Do you also disqualify astrophysicists?

No, because without the accuracy of their models, what would the biologists appeal to?

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 7:52 PM  

Vox, can you allow blockquote tags? Blogspot can handle them.

Tell me how. I don't see them in Settings:Posts and Comments.

Blogger subject by design August 25, 2014 7:52 PM  

What happens in trauma centers is not representative of the types of allopathic medicine about which those who choose traditional/alternative medicine are complaining. I'm trying to catch on to this logic stuff, and I think that is a straw man argument.

It is more like, when I have a back ache and I go to an M.D. she prescribes a drug, like ibuprofen, and does absolutely nothing to address the source of the pain. I go to my chiropractor and he sets my body right so the pain goes away.

For many, our experience with M.D.'s when it comes to illness or injury is that they have two, and only two, tools in their toolbox. One is drugs and the other is surgery. If I am disinclined to drugs or surgery I am not going to pay an M.D. to recommend those things for me.

That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the folks who can keep me from bleeding to death, who can put compound fractures back together and who can open an airway and keep me alive while my body struggles to heal from a brain injury.

Anonymous Anonymous August 25, 2014 7:58 PM  

"He only says that because he has no respect for the field. Bazinga!"

Uh no. Scientists are geologists now? News to me.

Anonymous Dumb founded August 25, 2014 8:04 PM  

Tell me how. I don't see them in Settings:Posts and Comments.

Ummm, I don't know how. I was going by the fact that I can use them on at least one other blogspot blog.

Anonymous Anonymous August 25, 2014 8:06 PM  

"He only says that because he has no respect for the field. Bazinga!"

And you're right Vox I have no respect for a field that brainwashes people into million.billions and soon to be trillions of years (notice how it follows the national debt) of years theory of origins right off the bat.

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 8:09 PM  

Anonymous, choose a Name or your comments will be deleted. Any Name, doesn't have to be real.

Anonymous Bazinga August 25, 2014 8:10 PM  

Is that better?

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 8:11 PM  

Is that better?

That's just fine. We can't permit Anonymous because one rapidly loses track of who is saying what. So, any name will suffice.

Anonymous dickson August 25, 2014 8:12 PM  

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheists-and-daddy-issues.html

This was the Boston University thing.

In other words, I'm not one of those people who affects not to care, but very much does

Except, like always, you used that response as an opportunity to work in a mention to an obscure factoid that serves as a notch. I'm sure "you" beat out Prince in hose awards, I'm also sure you pale in comparison.

I rowed in a boat that beat Harvard, Yale and Princeton's varsity heavy men's crew. But it's not something I can brag about because there is a lot I left unsaid.

Blogger Nate August 25, 2014 8:20 PM  

"On what basis do you disqualify geologists?"

I can't speak for me but its the rock licking that disqualifies geologists to me. I can't take people who lick rocks seriously.

Blogger Bogey August 25, 2014 8:33 PM  

Currently in the middle of doing some art, digital painting, and wondered after reading this exchange, what is doing science? Some examples for us not scientifically inclined would be helpful.

Anonymous Vidad August 25, 2014 8:36 PM  

@Nate

Rock-licking? Geology is from the Latin, meaning "the study of tiny cars."

Still silly, though.

Anonymous Anonymous August 25, 2014 8:38 PM  

Way before this debate took place Dr, Gorski laid out why the Hooker report is wrong (twice):

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/did-a-high-ranking-whistleblower-really-reveal-that-the-cdc-covered-up-proof-that-vaccines-cause-autism-in-african-american-boys/

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/08/22/brian-hooker-proves-andrew-wakefield-wrong-about-vaccines-and-autism/#comment-346695

Both blog posts make valid, well articulated points. Puts a different light on the twitter exchange I would think.

Anonymous Dr. J August 25, 2014 8:46 PM  

For this to devolve into a surgeon-bashing fest is particularly amusing on the particular subject of vaccinations. You'll not a find a group of professionals, excluding pediatricians, less willing to vaccinate their children than MDs - especially the ones who cut.

It's also amusing to hear people who don't know the first thing about surgery pontificating on how it will be so easily replaced with robots or how all surgery is "unnecessary." Go ahead and leave that about-to-blow appendix in your abdomen, or allow your bone spurs to keep squeezing down on your spinal cord and we'll see how that works out for you.

And Nate - you know I'm on your side man, but who's more easily replaced - Anesthesiologists or the surgeons they work with?

Anonymous DavidK August 25, 2014 8:51 PM  

Oh, and for anyone who sincerely believes non-allopathic medical approaches are the way to go, I propose a test. Set up an emergency room trauma center

Stop right there. Saving someone from major trauma is one thing allopathic medicine is actually good at. You want to add in anything else so it won't look like you are shamelessly cherry-picking?

Blogger Rabbi B August 25, 2014 8:58 PM  

"As it is, one of my great regrets is wasting the two years just to collect my Bachelor of Science degree."

Just another reminder that no one should let school get in the way of their education.

Blogger Nate August 25, 2014 9:00 PM  

Vox.. do you have the Encyclopedia of War? or the Encyclopedia of Wars? There appears to be a big difference. one is three volumns for 285 bucks... the other is 5 and costs almost 1000.

Anonymous Luke August 25, 2014 9:03 PM  

subject by design August 25, 2014 7:52 PM

"What happens in trauma centers is not representative of the types of allopathic medicine about which those who choose traditional/alternative medicine are complaining"

Sure it is. What putting "alternative" medicine types up against standard emergency medical treatment does is take out the placebo effect, quack incompetents taking credit for spontaneous remission (or being in position to hoodwink low-g people into believing that their chronic lower-back pain is "getting better" now). Statistically-valid data is your friend, if you really want to know the truth. If you just want to impugn with insufficient grounds people you can never be like, or sell a fraudulent product or service, then, no, you'll likely run from that.

First-hand example: I worked for 5 months in the QA/QC lab for a major packager of medicinal herbs. The majority of types (saw palmetto, St. John's Wort, etc.) you'd see on the shelf at a Wal-Mart, they made batches of into capsules for one wholesaler or retail chain at one time or another while I was there. For one order, they'd get in green stuff on Monday, brown stuff on Tuesday, stems on Wednesday, leaves on Thursday, varying in weight by +/- 60% -- and mostly coming from China (and we all surely know how their fraud level is negligible /s ), all being sold as the same product. Even if it worked, it wouldnt work. For that reason, if "herbs" are free, they're a bad deal. Administer them in a double-blind study where no one with a financial stake in the results is involved, isolate and identify the active ingredient, synthesize it, and have it prescribed in precisely known quantities specified for properly diagnosed illnesses. Until then, figure that herbs are mostly going to be useless, and most or all of the rest of the time can be expected to be harmful. If you currently make money selling herbs purported to be medicinal to the public, screw you, you're a fraud and a thief, preying on the desperate foolish, and need to stop that today and find an honest way of making a living.

Anonymous Carlotta August 25, 2014 9:05 PM  

The Master of Multitasking.

How did you have time to ALSO start a twitter war today?

Seriously, I am desperate here. Is it Italian coffee?

Anonymous Luke August 25, 2014 9:07 PM  

Nate August 25, 2014 8:20 PM

"On what basis do you disqualify geologists?"

I can't speak for me but its the rock licking that disqualifies geologists to me. I can't take people who lick rocks seriously."


Do you use any fossil fuels, mined metals, any products derived from either of those, or anything transported using FFs as fuel? If so, you need us. (I'm typing this from an oil rig in Wyoming, FWIW.)

Anonymous Carlotta August 25, 2014 9:09 PM  

Luke, you are aware that herbs don't have to be purchased in capsulesto be used? In fact, in their intact state they are much better for you. For instance taking asprin versus drinking willow bark tea.

My family has used them for generations. Of course we don't sell them.

Blogger Nate August 25, 2014 9:15 PM  

"Do you use any fossil fuels, mined metals, any products derived from either of those, or anything transported using FFs as fuel? "

Do you flush toilets? you do? OMG civil engineers are totally scientists!

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 25, 2014 9:15 PM  

"after reading this exchange, what is doing science? Some examples for us not scientifically inclined would be helpful."

Best definition of "doing science" I've ever heard....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RthZgszykLs

Classic.

Blogger Nate August 25, 2014 9:17 PM  

also... people that run their mouths about modern medicine have never seen an awake craniotomy. Its easy to talk smack until you have a conversation with a dude that has his brain exposed.

Anonymous MaMu1977 August 25, 2014 9:28 PM  

Breast cancer diagnoses have risen due to three readily identifiable factors: increased access to care/monitoring, decreased standards for positive diagnoses and degraded phyiological maintenance.

It's like the "horny female teacher" conviction rate. The same people who decry the sudden influx of female teachers with male students will freely admit that "back in the good old days"...
1. Teachers weren't held under as much scrutiny (better detection methods)
2. Teachers had higher burdens for proof (lowered standards for alarm)
3. Their female peers weren't anywhere near as amenable towards experimentation as now (degraded lifestyles)
Or, tl;dr "If I had a teacher like that back in the Sixties/Forties/etc., I wouldn't have told anybody because the girls at my school weren't giving up anything until they met your parents... Yeah, my 12th grade English teacher kissed the senior cornerback on the mouth on the last day of school but it didn't MEAN anything..."

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia August 25, 2014 9:34 PM  

" "Do you use any fossil fuels, mined metals, any products derived from either of those, or anything transported using FFs as fuel? "

Do you flush toilets? you do? OMG civil engineers are totally scientists!"

Civil brings services to site.

Mechanical engineers enable your toilets to flush at the site.

Just sayin'.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia August 25, 2014 9:35 PM  

(And the plumbing contractors - plumbers that do the install)

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia August 25, 2014 9:38 PM  

Speaking of which, I would rather talk with a plumber than most surgeons.

Blogger Remo August 25, 2014 9:50 PM  

If the last several years of VPFL mean anything your draft science needs work. The piranha of the Serengeti hasn't had a season championship in quite some time. And yes it is easy to trash talk when I myself have never played in your league.

Anonymous automatthew August 25, 2014 9:57 PM  

To my knowledge there is no way to make blockquotes work in Blogspot's native comment system. If you've used the blockquote tag in the comments on a Blogspot blog, that blog was using a different comments system.

Perhaps it was CoComment. Snicker.

OpenID cailcorishev August 25, 2014 9:58 PM  

Except, like always, you used that response as an opportunity to work in a mention to an obscure factoid that serves as a notch.

Hell, if I'd beaten freakin' Prince at something musical, I'd be posting as "IBeatPrinceThatOneTime and making up reasons to comment so I'd have an excuse to use it every day.

Anonymous Pellegri August 25, 2014 10:06 PM  

Way before this debate took place Dr, Gorski laid out why the Hooker report is wrong (twice):

The first one of these spends several hundred words on Why Hooker Is a Bad Person and a lot of Obviously He's Wrong before it gets to the actual analysis.

I say this not to disqualify, just--why the fuck can't we go right into the analysis and ditch the snide comments?

Blogger Bogey August 25, 2014 10:09 PM  

Speaking of which, I would rather talk with a plumber than most surgeons.

..and let only Vox have all the fun?

Anonymous Stickwick August 25, 2014 10:10 PM  

Anonymous/Bazinga: And you're right Vox I have no respect for a field that brainwashes people into million.billions and soon to be trillions of years (notice how it follows the national debt) of years theory of origins right off the bat.

It's never going to be trillions of years. Even if it did get to that point, it wouldn't help the Darwinists one whit -- they need an eternity to rescue their model, which is why they deep down resent the big bang.

Anonymous Pellegri August 25, 2014 10:12 PM  

And the first article concludes with "who knows whether or not he found something, but probably not because I spent a whole bunch of time building up how untrustworthy this guy is".

He makes a valid point that analyzing the data wrong (in this case switching from case-control to cohort) is a black mark against the reanalysis, but it's buried under piles of "I'm right because". Seriously can we just ban smarm from science.

Anonymous Bobo August 25, 2014 10:14 PM  

"Breast cancer diagnoses have risen due to three readily identifiable factors: increased access to care/monitoring, decreased standards for positive diagnoses and degraded phyiological maintenance."

Which is why breast cancer diagnoses in, say, Japan, have risen at a comparable rate? Uh...

Anonymous zen0 August 25, 2014 10:16 PM  

And as for anyone who wants to resort to the obvious dodge of crediting The Encyclopedia of Wars, well, I will simply laugh at you and observe that while I have it, and have read it, you obviously haven't ever even laid eyes upon it.

I hope Spacebunny at least gets honorable mention if not co-discovery status.

Anonymous JI August 25, 2014 10:43 PM  

VD, when I said I hope you don't end up with Dr. Gorski as a surgeon, I didn't mean to imply he would intentionally harm you. I was just thinking of your conversation with him and it struck my funny bone imagining you getting him for your doctor. Most especially if the conversation re. science and statistics continued even while you were getting prepped for surgery. You would be explaining logic to him while he would be showing you his sheepskins, plaques, awards and journal articles, and not hearing a word you say. It would make a great comedy skit, don't you think?

Anonymous The other skeptic August 25, 2014 10:43 PM  

Feds tracking hate speech on twitter and saying Vaccinations are no good is likely classified as hate speech.

Wait, I forgot, Vox is probably on their list already.

Anonymous Luke August 25, 2014 10:53 PM  

Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia August 25, 2014 9:34 PM

" "Do you use any fossil fuels, mined metals, any products derived from either of those, or anything transported using FFs as fuel? "

Do you flush toilets? you do? OMG civil engineers are totally scientists!"

====================================================

The production of fossil fuels, mined metals, etc. do not establish that geologists are scientists. They establish that geologists have a relatively valid applied professional field.

===========================================================

Carlotta August 25, 2014 9:09 PM

"Luke, you are aware that herbs don't have to be purchased in capsulesto be used? In fact, in their intact state they are much better for you"

Evidence for this is lacking AFAIK. The gold standard for herbs should still be the double-blind studies done by M.D.s, no one involved who has a financial incentive in positive results, active ingredient identified and isolated, latter prescribed in pure form by M.D.s for specific conditions in precise dosages determined by DB studies as correct.

Right now, herb advocates are on the Quaternary Alluvium standard. (That's kind of the "bovine primary solid intestinal waste secretion" standard, for you nongeologists out there.)

Anonymous goat August 25, 2014 10:58 PM  

Wow, Vox got his ass kicked on twitter. Is tis his Cpt. Cook moment vis a vis his ilk? I doubt it, because sheeple

Anonymous rtp August 25, 2014 10:58 PM  

"I'm a geneticist with extensive training in statistics. The Hooker study is the worst I've ever come across, and here's a thorough explanation of why his methodology is the opposite of appropriate:
http://www.epidemiological.net/directed-acyclic-graphs-and-the-mmr-vaccine-doesnt-cause-autism/"

Figures that a guy who lays out his credentials first up will be a complete moron. You cannot use sampling data which *does not* find a correlation to prove that no such correlation exists.

It is known as the fallacy of accepting the null hypothesis and the fact that so many researchers are running regressions against samples that don't find a correlation and trumpeting them around the world as proof that there is no relationship just perfectly proves Vox's point. Actually Vox is far too kind as every single one of them is a complete imbecile.

Using sampling data to prove a relationship doesn't exist between two variables is like looking for lost treasure in my bedroom and extrapolating from its absence that there is no lost treasure to be found anywhere on the planet.

Indeed, the use of regressions at all to prove a connection is of scant worth because when the number of adverse reactions is always going to be relatively small requiring a massive and unwieldy (and susceptible to tiny biases) sample size. That is why the correct method of determining if there is a relationship is looking at the cases themselves and seeing if any fit what is known as challenge, dechallenge, rechallenge.

If even a single one of them does then we can conclude that a causal (or at least co-factor) relationship is certain.

For those who don't understand the principle here is an example: kid comes in at 2 months perfectly healthy and leaves with a high fever after his shots. Child loses sleep and is acting irritably over the next week or so but then gets better. At 4 months he gets his next round of shots and has all the previous symptoms plus seizures and vomiting. He takes a few weeks to recover. At 6 months he gets a further round of shots and from that point on is clearly neurologically damaged (encephalitis).

That particular case is challenge, dechallenge, rechallenge, dechallenge, rechallenge (so it is twice as certain as certain). But there are plenty of cases that would follow a similar pattern if the disgusting child-poisoning psychopaths in the medical industry cared to look. Of course they never will because when the truth of this criminal enterprise becomes accepted (and it is not just that vaccines are dangerous they are also completely and utterly useless too - indeed the entire germ theory is a complete lie) they will all be lynched. And that is if they are lucky.

Anonymous The other skeptic August 25, 2014 10:59 PM  

He believes in science

Anonymous The other skeptic August 25, 2014 11:03 PM  

Federal judge rules CA's 10-day waiting period is unconstitutional

Anonymous rtp August 25, 2014 11:04 PM  

"Way before this debate took place Dr, Gorski laid out why the Hooker report is wrong (twice):

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/did-a-high-ranking-whistleblower-really-reveal-that-the-cdc-covered-up-proof-that-vaccines-cause-autism-in-african-american-boys/

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/08/22/brian-hooker-proves-andrew-wakefield-wrong-about-vaccines-and-autism/#comment-346695

Both blog posts make valid, well articulated points. Puts a different light on the twitter exchange I would think."

I don't think I have ever read one of Gorski's ridiculous screeds that wasn't 100 parts boring, wanky insults and 1 part worthless, irrelevant factoid.

But how about you explain how exactly Gorski showed that we should continue to trust the CDC?

Anonymous Pellegri August 25, 2014 11:19 PM  

The gold standard for herbs should still be the double-blind studies done by M.D.s, no one involved who has a financial incentive in positive results, active ingredient identified and isolated, latter prescribed in pure form by M.D.s for specific conditions in precise dosages determined by DB studies as correct.

Which is a lovely standard but unfortunately becoming increasingly less how it works even for not-herb drugs.

The FDA makes a very big deal of trying to hold companies to objective standards and control how testing is done, but they're terribly underfunded for the job they're trying to do--and so you get stuff like the Vioxx disaster where they knew it was causing heart failure and successfully buried the evidence of it.

Anonymous Pellegri August 25, 2014 11:20 PM  

Er, I should clarify: The makers of Vioxx knew it was causing heart failure and buried it. I don't believe the FDA was actually implicated in that, they were just unaware the data existed showing that it was harmful.

Anonymous Rum August 25, 2014 11:31 PM  

RTP
Challenge, rechallenge, etc. does not mean much when there is a natural background of occurrence for fever, nausea, and even encephalitis. All of these are commonly the result of viral infections in childhood. Could easily be in a true, true, unrelated dance with vaccine administration.
I can promise you that anyone who has actually seen measles, mumps, & rubella up close is going to get their kids vaccinated in a heart-beat. Diptheria can be a raging nightmare.

Anonymous Luke August 25, 2014 11:37 PM  

Pellegri August 25, 2014 11:19 PM

The gold standard for herbs should still be the double-blind studies done by M.D.s, no one involved who has a financial incentive in positive results, active ingredient identified and isolated, latter prescribed in pure form by M.D.s for specific conditions in precise dosages determined by DB studies as correct.

"Which is a lovely standard but unfortunately becoming increasingly less how it works even for not-herb drugs.

The FDA makes a very big deal of trying to hold companies to objective standards and control how testing is done, but they're terribly underfunded for the job they're trying to do--and so you get stuff like the Vioxx disaster where they knew it was causing heart failure and successfully buried the evidence of it."


Shoot 10, jail 50 for 10-15 years, and bankrupt 200. Throw in an amnesty (and maybe a reward) for mid- to low-level types who whistleblow, and watch the frequency of that sort of thing plummet. Great laws mean zip if they're not enforced (Exhibit #1: U.S. border; Exhibit #2: treason laws; Exhibit #3: Second and Tenth Amendments).

Blogger WarKicker August 25, 2014 11:48 PM  

"Personally, I have never met a more unjustifiably arrogant group of people than physicians."

Ouch Stickwick! But alas, I can't disagree. I've certainly come across some bona fide jerks in this profession. However, my current crop of colleagues seem quite reasonable. Five of them I know have IQ's north of 145, so they are quick studies, but none as far as I am aware of venture outside their area of expertise with the assumption that their intelligence alone will carry them. In fact they are actually quite thoughtful. It only takes being around them just a few minutes to realize they are critical thinkers, a quality that Vox and the regulars that comprise the Ilk share that attracted me to this blog.

"I don't think that's the case. Human anatomy varies far more than most folks realize."

Nate's right. Decision making and creativity during surgery are exceedingly important to account for the variability. I can do five of the same type cases in a row and am still amazed how different each of the procedures felt. Now robotics has it's place and is very precise, but heck, in the time it would take to set up the OR with the Da Vinci, I could have been done with a thyroidectomy through a small incision and had the patient in the recovery room to be discharged later that day and saved over $4000 on operative costs.

"There's no real reason Physician could't be a BS degree instead of an MD. I'd submit that it is one of the easier professional Doctorate degrees"

Perhaps certain aspects of medicine or specific specialties, and if you are referring to the degree as intellectually easy, I couldn't disagree. But still the thousands of pages of material to absorb, the many weeks of working 120 hours or more in residency (although now I think they have laws against that) have to be negotiated not to mention being witness to human suffering at all possible hours (wow was pediatric oncology tough). Based on my journey, it was a physical and emotional challenge, never intellectual. The longest case I performed was an excision of a skull base tumor from a young man done in conjunction with neurosurgeons. It required a craniotomy and an infra temporal fossa approach with subsequent free flap reconstruction. It lasted 23 hours. When I do a set of tympanostomy tubes that takes all of 90 seconds, I do think to myself sometimes "anyone can do this", but in a case like I just described, I swear I felt like I used every single minute of my 15 years of training to get there. He did well and I thank God for that opportunity to bless him.

Anonymous Carlotta August 25, 2014 11:49 PM  


Evidence for this is lacking AFAIK. The gold standard for herbs should still be the double-blind studies done by M.D.s, no one involved who has a financial incentive in positive results, active ingredient identified and isolated, latter prescribed in pure form by M.D.s for specific conditions in precise dosages determined by DB studies as correct



@Luke
I see you missed my point entirely.

Anonymous DavidK August 25, 2014 11:53 PM  

I don't think I have ever read one of Gorski's ridiculous screeds that wasn't 100 parts boring, wanky insults and 1 part worthless, irrelevant factoid.

Seriously, I clicked on the first link and Gorsky just kept talking and talking about Hooker without bothering to tell me where Hooker was wrong. How much word salad does he expect me to wade through before he finally takes his sweet time to address the real issue?

Anonymous Carlotta August 25, 2014 11:54 PM  

I can promise you that anyone who has actually seen measles, mumps, & rubella up close is going to get their kids vaccinated in a heart-beat. Diptheria can be a raging nightmare.



Diptheria is very different then MMR. I had both Measles and Mumps among other things. Pretty common when i was growing up.

Anonymous Luke August 26, 2014 12:00 AM  

I got it, Carlotta. I just disagreed with it completely.

Anonymous Stickwick August 26, 2014 12:11 AM  

WarKicker: Ouch Stickwick! But alas, I can't disagree. I've certainly come across some bona fide jerks in this profession. However, my current crop of colleagues seem quite reasonable.

Glad to hear it.

I don't mean to imply that all physicians are arrogant jerks, or even most of them; but a disproportionate number are. The main problem seems to be an inability to admit error. For example, one of the specialists my husband saw earlier this year made what was, in my opinion, a gross error in judgement (prescribing an extreme treatment in the absence of a diagnosis that backfired big time). Even after he was presented with the evidence, he not only stuck to his guns, but was a raging a-hole about it. Unfortunately, that sort of attitude seems more typical of physicians than any other group of professionals.

Blogger IM2L844 August 26, 2014 12:17 AM  

They establish that geologists have a relatively valid applied professional field.

Don't take it personally, Luke. It's like saying drummers aren't real musicians. Some of the things they've been known to lick makes rock licking seem downright erudite.

Anonymous Pellegri August 26, 2014 12:18 AM  

Shoot 10, jail 50 for 10-15 years, and bankrupt 200. Throw in an amnesty (and maybe a reward) for mid- to low-level types who whistleblow, and watch the frequency of that sort of thing plummet. Great laws mean zip if they're not enforced (Exhibit #1: U.S. border; Exhibit #2: treason laws; Exhibit #3: Second and Tenth Amendments).

I agree with this completely, but I doubt it's gonna happen.

Anonymous kfg August 26, 2014 12:34 AM  

"There's no real reason Physician could't be a BS degree instead of an MD. I'd submit that it is one of the easier professional Doctorate degrees"

An MD is not a PhD. That is why you will, now and then, see "MD, PhD" to signify that the bearer is not merely a physician. In some countries a physician is not even entitled be called "Doctor" unless they have an actual Phd.

An MD is a Masters plus a practicum, whereas a PhD requires original research work.

With regards to your basic point, that is actually how things were not so long ago and there were college accredited physicians as young as their teens.

You might want to read Stephen Leacock's Too Much College:

http://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/leacock-toomuchcollege/leacock-toomuchcollege-00-h.html

Anonymous rtp August 26, 2014 12:39 AM  

"I can promise you that anyone who has actually seen measles, mumps, & rubella up close is going to get their kids vaccinated in a heart-beat. Diptheria can be a raging nightmare."

Rubbish. There is no non-circular evidence that vaccines reduced any of these conditions. They have all just been renamed. Measles gets called roseola or fifth disease (amongst others); mumps can be labelled a whole host of different things http://reference.medscape.com/article/966678-differential; and rubella has much the same differential diagnoses as the other two.

The rubella vaccine was introduced solely for the purpose of reducing congenital conditions. But do you know what has happened to the amount of congenital deafness, blindness and heart defects since this vaccine? They have increased.

Skin conditions in children are a dime a dozen but all that has happened is that the doctor looks at the patients immunisation history and, in a wonderful bit of circular reasoning, says "it can't possibly be measles because vaccinated children can't get measles can they". And the public health bureaucracies actually instruct/encourage doctors to do precisely this.

The entire so-called evidence for vaccines reducing disease is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. And it is even worse than that because 40 years ago all measles cases (practically) were diagnosed clinically whereas today in general there will be a requirement for laboratory confirmation which arbitrarily knocks out the vast majority of cases (of what would have used to have been called measles).

Oh and diphtheria is what people of 100 years ago called a sore throat. Today we call it strep/tonsillitis/RSV etc. Again, there is no non-circular evidence it is any less common than it ever was indeed I saw a statistics that said that between 3-5 per cent of children today will be hospitalised before they are five with a respiratory condition (that would include lower as well as upper). So the notion that the diphtheria (and pertussis) vaccines did anything worthwhile is baseless speculation.

"Challenge, rechallenge, etc. does not mean much when there is a natural background of occurrence for fever, nausea, and even encephalitis. All of these are commonly the result of viral infections in childhood. Could easily be in a true, true, unrelated dance with vaccine administration."

In order for this reasoning to be valid we would have to a) compare it with a situation where mass vaccination does not take place; and b) completely ignore the fact that the symptoms in each case are the same (except increasing in severity).

At any rate the second lot of dechallenge, rechallenge would make such a situation completely implausible. And what's more there are many, many of these kinds of stories from autism parents - not just a tiny few. And what's even more, even if you want to say that CDR is not perfect it doesn't alter the fact that it is easily the best method at determining a relationship and yet it has not even been considered - which is sufficient to show that the CDC etc are all criminals.

Blogger IM2L844 August 26, 2014 1:30 AM  

in a wonderful bit of circular reasoning, says "it can't possibly be measles because vaccinated children can't get measles can they". And the public health bureaucracies actually instruct/encourage doctors to do precisely this.

OT, but it is exactly this sort of reasoning that is used to justify NSA (et al.) intelligence gathering programs. No repeat of 9/11, it must be working. However, if anyone notices these sorts of patterns repeating themselves across government bureaucracies, they must be afflicted with Apophenia. Just sayin'...

Anonymous Bazinga August 26, 2014 1:32 AM  

RTP is on a roll. Take that troll *thwap*

Anonymous Noah B. August 26, 2014 1:32 AM  

Sooner or later, we're going to reach Peak Fraud.

Blogger Bosefus August 26, 2014 1:37 AM  

"One thing I've noticed about scientists is that they never seem to understand that their expertise in one particular area doesn't translate very well, if at all, into..."

God mocks them... happens all the time. Haven't you noticed???

I know this a canned response but God simply mocks them... next case.

Anonymous Bazinga August 26, 2014 1:45 AM  

"I don't mean to imply that all physicians are arrogant jerks, or even most of them; but a disproportionate number are."

It's called a "God complex". Most MD's have it. Bad place to be for them both personally/spiritually and of course for anybody under their "care" or direction.

Anonymous VD August 26, 2014 2:15 AM  

Vox.. do you have the Encyclopedia of War? or the Encyclopedia of Wars? There appears to be a big difference. one is three volumns for 285 bucks... the other is 5 and costs almost 1000.

The three-volume set.

Anonymous Fnord P August 26, 2014 2:22 AM  

@Luke You are being disingenuous. Allopathic medicine is perfectly suited for treating trauma. Its the "take this expensive pill for this invented syndrome" that is inappropriate. Most is placebo effect so then the crystal healers, aura feelers and various other charlatans can come in and take over. for less money.

Doctors learn to treat everything with a pill then another pill to relieve the side effects of the first one and so on. A lot of modern illnesses can be avoided by nutrition and exercise but that doesn't sell blockbuster drugs, does it? The doctors, through their training, are complicit in using medicine to extract excessive wealth and putting patient health in second place. How many hours are spent on learning prevention and how many in smug little seminars paid for by the drug companies?

Anonymous Rum August 26, 2014 2:28 AM  

The destruction caused by Diptheria is from a toxin produced by a bacterial agent of the same name. It is kinda like a normal, everyday sorethroat, except that they often die.The one I took care of had to be on a ventilator for a long time and nearly ended up with a tracheostomy. The kid survived, but it was a near run thing..
There was a time in American history when it was much easier to become an MD. Up until the late 19th century. Then folks started noticing that all the important progress in Medicine was happening in Germany, which required many years of training and serious examinations. Americans do not like being a backwater place.The flu pandemic of 1919 also had a big influence in validating longer training. Only a few Institutions in this country, notably John Hopkins Medical School, could even begin to do research into its causes. The ones that proved useful all had serious, long term training programs.
Besides, no one would choose to take their own extremely sick child to anyone with less than the best training. "Good enough" is a dead-end notion when the chips are down. In real life, people want the best care they can get.

Anonymous Fnord P August 26, 2014 3:00 AM  

Oh, and if you ever wondered why your doctor is really prescribing you that drug.

Its all about the science of course...

Blogger WarKicker August 26, 2014 8:32 AM  

" Even after he was presented with the evidence, he not only stuck to his guns, but was a raging a-hole about it. Unfortunately, that sort of attitude seems more typical of physicians than any other group of professionals."

Sorry to hear about that Stickwick. Unfortunately, that seems to happen too often.

"Oh, and if you ever wondered why your doctor is really prescribing you that drug."

Ha! I read the link. As it were, one of the drug reps that use to frequent our office is also a cheerleader for a professional football team. While she was not unintelligent, it was clear that I knew vastly more about the drug she was trying to push. She became frequently frustrated with me because I never prescribed this particular medication. It was expensive and overkill for its indication except in severe cases. When I pointed out that that although the company was touting a 98.5% cure rate with the medication, a much cheaper alternative drug had just as high a cure rate not to mention the condition in question can actually be fixed from ingredients that can be purchased at a grocery store for less than 3 dollars. Her rebuttal was that I was the only physician in her territory not prescribing the drug. I like to think I owe my patients much more than to be swayed by a pretty face.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus August 26, 2014 9:54 AM  

@kfg

Correct, an MD is not a PhD, which is why I described it as a professional doctorate degree. Similar to PharmD, DPT,etc

@Stickwick

"The main problem seems to be an inability to admit error."

Couldn't agree more. I think that is a behavior inculcated in Med School through the practice of senior physicians pimping student physicians for questions: "ALWAYS have an answer ready, even if it might not be the right one". The unintended consequence of shame-based training methods.

@WarKicker

"Based on my journey, it was a physical and emotional challenge, never intellectual."

That is my observation as well. I design medical equipment, ergo I've spent a lot of time in the clinical setting and can see what my colleagues and friends go through.

Agree totally with you and Nate on the issues with autonomous surgical robots: not going to happen anytime soon...In fact I don't think the requisite AI will ever be developed to make such a thing practical.

Anonymous Bah August 26, 2014 10:47 AM  

I've certainly come across some bona fide jerks in this profession. However, my current crop of colleagues seem quite reasonable. Five of them I know have IQ's north of 145, so they are quick studies, but none as far as I am aware of venture outside their area of expertise with the assumption that their intelligence alone will carry them.

Many years ago, a radiologist started lecturing me (a history PhD) about American history.

Shut up, I explained.

Blogger JLanceCombs August 26, 2014 11:08 AM  

If the exchange you posted up for us is the full exchange, it still looks to me like he mentioned Nature first.

Anonymous Carlotta August 26, 2014 11:41 AM  

@Luke you didn't disagree and certainly did not refute my point. You ignored it because of your agenda.

Anonymous Dumb founded August 26, 2014 12:30 PM  

Ummm, I don't know how. I was going by the fact that I can use them on at least one other blogspot blog.

I was mistaken. It was a WordPress blog. Sorry for the noise.

Anonymous Rhaeygar August 26, 2014 3:05 PM  

Hey Vox, I wanted to ask you, do you think that you're intelligent? If so, I would like to dispell you of that delusion so that you don't make an utter fool of yourself in the future. Glad to help.

Anonymous rtp August 26, 2014 6:51 PM  

“The destruction caused by Diptheria is from a toxin produced by a bacterial agent of the same name.”

Cheers for that. But I am well aware of the mainstream belief of what causes diphtheria. Incidentally, how exactly can we have herd immunity for diphtheria (same applies for pertussis) when the vaccine doesn’t actually target the bacteria itself and therefore cannot possibly prevent anybody from being infected (and transmitting) with the bacteria? In other words, doctors make up this fairy tale but they can’t keep avoiding all these plot-holes.

“It is kinda like a normal, everyday sorethroat, except that they often die.”

Strep can be deadly too so we are told (by mainstream medicine) so what is the difference? You can argue that it is a ratio thing which is fine except that there are two problems here. Firstly, nobody has the slightest clue how many sore throats there were in 1800 so nobody knows what ratio of diphtheria sufferers died from it and secondly, we already know that deaths attributed to these so-called infectious diseases (mortality data is something we do know of – at least in the US, Australia and the UK) had all but disappeared *before* the vaccine came along. Indeed, deaths from many so-called infectious diseases such as scarlet fever and TB (the latter had no common vaccine in usage in the US) disappeared without any widely used vaccine.

“The one I took care of had to be on a ventilator for a long time and nearly ended up with a tracheostomy. The kid survived, but it was a near run thing..”

See above. This tells us nothing about the validity of time series data for diphtheria since the vaccine was introduced. We do not diagnose it the same way today as we did 100 years ago so any claim that the vaccine wiped the disease out is baseless speculation. For all we know, were we to go back in time and take a swab of every diphtheria patient, the vast majority would have been found not to have the bacteria. And indeed it is vastly worse than that because we have no idea how many people walk into a doctor’s office with a sore throat and the doctor doesn’t even bother considering diphtheria because of a belief that it is highly unlikely (particularly in the vaccinated).

“The flu pandemic of 1919 also had a big influence in validating longer training.”

How? From the epidemiology the best hypothesis is that the flu pandemic was iatrogenic. Those who got it were mostly young adults – as opposed to the elderly or infants. And these were the same people who were mostly targeted for all the vaccines that governments wanted to be used up after the war effort (soldiers – who had been human guinea pigs throughout the whole war – were particularly badly affected).
“ The ones that proved useful all had serious, long term training programs.”

What do you mean by “prove useful”? Even if you dispute my above hypothesis that the pandemic was iatrogenic (and I don’t have a problem with that) how on earth do you come to the conclusion that allopathic medicine did any good?

“Besides, no one would choose to take their own extremely sick child to anyone with less than the best training.”

That all depends on what you define as “best”. As far as I’m concerned every single belief doctors have about so-called infectious disease and cancer is bullshit. The fact that their bullshit has been sprayed with the most expensive perfume doesn’t change anything.

Anonymous Luke August 26, 2014 7:04 PM  

Bah August 26, 2014 10:47 AM

" I've certainly come across some bona fide jerks in this profession. However, my current crop of colleagues seem quite reasonable. Five of them I know have IQ's north of 145, so they are quick studies, but none as far as I am aware of venture outside their area of expertise with the assumption that their intelligence alone will carry them."

" Many years ago, a radiologist started lecturing me (a history PhD) about American history.

Shut up, I explained."


The key term there is "many years ago". Had you been a recent degree grantee, his position of expecting you not to know much actual history whmight well have been reasonable. (See Bloom's book "Closing of the American Mind", Iserbyt's "Deliberate Dumbing Down of America", Peter Brimelow's "The Worm in the Apple", Jaime Escalante's and John Taylor Gatto's books on U.S. schooling, etc.) I have met multiple political science and history majors that are actually quite poorly read on history, having read considerably more (numerically and WRT seriousness) books than they had, and that's not even my professional field. This is an experience I understand Vox has had as well.

Anonymous Luke August 26, 2014 7:12 PM  

rtp August 26, 2014 6:51 PM

" As far as I’m concerned every single belief doctors have about so-called infectious disease and cancer is bullshit."

Interesting. So you believe Pasteur and germ theory to be hokum. How much microbiology background do you have? (I.e., how much time have you spent looking at protists under a scope exceeding 200 power?) Likewise, do you think miasmas cause infectious diseases? I'm really curious to know what you believe causes GRIDS (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Disease, the original term for AIDS) and BSE/CJD.

Anonymous rtp August 26, 2014 9:50 PM  

"Interesting. So you believe Pasteur and germ theory to be hokum."

If germ theory were true, doctors would have the lifespan of a fruitfly.

Doctors do not have the lifespan of a fruitfly.

Ergo, germ theory is hokum.

QED

I could go further as there at least a dozen points - any one of which independently destroys the possibility of the germ theory, but that one is the most glaringly obvious.

"How much microbiology background do you have?"

Yawn!

"(I.e., how much time have you spent looking at protists under a scope exceeding 200 power?)"

Fine me the guy(s) who has independently observed a pathogenic germ seeking out healthy cells and attacking and killing them (in vitro or in vivo).

"Likewise, do you think miasmas cause infectious diseases?"

No. But a theory of disease that assumed the need for pink elephants would still be epistemically superior to the germ theory.

"I'm really curious to know what you believe causes GRIDS (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Disease, the original term for AIDS) and BSE/CJD."

Go and have a read about the opossum and how it becomes paralysed (through a sub-conscious process). This is where we get the phrase 'play possum' from incidentally.

That right there is the foundation of your answer.

Anonymous Luke August 26, 2014 11:42 PM  

No doubt in your universe Copernicus was wrong, phlogiston exists, mice spontaneously generate in piles of wheat, the Earth is hollow (Cyrus Teed reference), and Von Danniken and Velikovsky were on to something. Tell me, do you give credence to the Abiotic Oil hope?

P.S.: "Yawn" is not a substantive response to a request for background. Oh, and I have seen yeast cells visibly suppressed by bacteria growing in their propagator.

Blogger Bosefus August 27, 2014 2:32 AM  

Jack of all trades ... who do you love?... I don't mind dyin...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi0e7brHdMQ

Blogger Bosefus August 27, 2014 2:35 AM  

Then again....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWYNI3K5zS0

Blogger Bosefus August 27, 2014 2:43 AM  

Science...have another hit... of Fresh Air
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EacQEhrbBQ
ok...it's not science

Blogger Bosefus August 27, 2014 2:50 AM  

Uh oh... I might have to stay up all night... What was the point again???...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_2ys0ByMT8

Blogger Bosefus August 27, 2014 3:11 AM  

ok, one last one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpWIi_hr_yU

Blogger Bosefus August 27, 2014 3:13 AM  

let's just cut to the King...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n2d1_OIHZ4

Anonymous Luke August 27, 2014 4:51 AM  

PWI much, Bosefus?

Anonymous Bah August 27, 2014 11:04 AM  

The key term there is "many years ago". Had you been a recent degree grantee, his position of expecting you not to know much actual history whmight well have been reasonable.

I'm older than you think. Even then it wasn't reasonable. =)

It was particularly amusing that he suggested I needed to read more books. In grad school, we had to read at least one complete book per course per week - which adds up after six semesters of coursework. And I had to read quite a few books even to get into grad school. And I had to read even more for the PhD. So nah, I did not think his claim was reasonable.

Anonymous Luke August 27, 2014 6:54 PM  

Well, Bah, there is Judge Bork's experience in law school to contrast. (He went to some highly-thought of place like Columbia or a lesser Ivy, I forget which one.) It was finals time one semester, and he was studying his tail off all day, every day. He encountered a woman he knew slightly that lived in a nearby apartment on his floor, and they chatted for a moment. She was in Education (apparentely grad student). He groused good-naturedly about all the studying for finals he was having to do, and asked how studying for finals was going for her. She responded that finals were a very easy time for her, that they were graded exclusively on class participation.

Now you see why I don't consider any degree at any level granted by a college of Education to be at all a valid degree. God knows there are other liberal arts majors not much better, and what is history but a liberal arts degree?

Anonymous rtp August 27, 2014 8:08 PM  

"Tell me, do you give credence to the Abiotic Oil hope?"

How exactly did the dinosaurs make it all the way out the moons of Saturn to die en masse to give us pools of liquid hydrocarbon?

"P.S.: "Yawn" is not a substantive response to a request for background."

And trying to poison the well by saying "you aren't allowed an opinion because you don't have a degree in such and such" isn't a substantive request. If you think your superior background renders me incapable of matching you on this issue then you should have no trouble taking me apart on the facts and logic.

Of course, if you don't think you can do the latter then obsessing over credentials may well be optimal.

Anonymous rtp August 27, 2014 8:10 PM  

"No doubt in your universe Copernicus was wrong, phlogiston exists, mice spontaneously generate in piles of wheat, the Earth is hollow (Cyrus Teed reference), and Von Danniken and Velikovsky were on to something"

You do understand that if there have been many blatantly wrong beliefs that were nonetheless hegemonic it actually *weakens* your argument that we should all blindly accept the words of the authorities don't you?

Anonymous Luke August 28, 2014 3:22 AM  

Rtp, do you plan to answer direct questions sufficiently to conform with board rules, or not?

Anonymous rtp August 28, 2014 7:48 PM  

"Rtp, do you plan to answer direct questions sufficiently to conform with board rules, or not?"

Looks to me that I have answered everything you asked - and what I didn't answer directly you should have been able to infer. But if there is any ambivalence feel free to repeat the relevant question.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts